The failure of parties at the December 2009 Copenhagen conference to secure a new treaty on global climate mitigation has elicited various reactions. Nearly 200 countries participating in the negotiations concluded by merely “taking note” of the Copenhagen Accord of December 18, 2009. Some have argued that the lack of a viable treaty at Copenhagen reflects the reality of “a world divided” about (a) the facts of climate change, (b) what count as legitimate mitigation actions, and (c) how obligations are to be distributed internationally. Lack of agreement includes charges of “obstructionist” strategy in the case of Saudi Arabia. These charges are here examined and debated in light of philosophical concern for distributive justice and the Islamic perspective on justice as it applies to pursuit of national interest and Islamic principles of public benefit.

Current Issue:

MERIA Current Issue

The Islamic State having lost its entire caliphate, save for a few strips of land in southern and eastern Syria, does not mean it is on the verge of defeat. Instead, it has learned the lesson from its … [Read More...]

Click here for PDF
The Kurdistan region’s decision to hold an independence referendum on September 25, 2017, created a new area of conflict in the Middle East. The international players and countries … [Read More...]

Click here for PDF
The United States has engaged in several years of war in Iraq against the Islamic State (IS) since launching Combined Joint Task Force – Operation Inherent Resolve in October 2014. … [Read More...]

Support Our Work

We depend on your contributions. Donations from the U.S., Canada, UK, and Israel are tax-deductible. Please click the “Donate” button for instructions for donation via PayPal, credit card, or check.